Everyone should have a basic level of care provided for them. This includes; housing, food, water, medical care and heating.
Entertainment and luxury would be used as incentive for work (in a capitalist society), while a basic level of care (as described before) would be supplied to every individual.
(First time debating so please say if I 'm doing something wrong.)

To a certain extent, to have the essentials in life provided for you would be good but there are flaws to your opinion. First of all to have everyone cared for would require a lot of caring which would exasperate the already worrying problem regarding the amount of carers. Secondly, if everyone was cared for, provided with food and water and given houses without paying (assuming based on how you've said "everyone should have") then businesses which thrive would be jeopardised. Also people who do not work would be able to live off benefits without having to invest in much food or water or medical care; less people would work which as we all know is not good. How you've used 'everyone 'implies to me that you mean people around the globe. Now as fair as your statement is, it is rather unrealistic as it is not easy to supply everyone with food, water, houses, heating and medical care. For example Africa is quite a poor continent and it would be moronic to think that everyone could be supplied with food, heating, basic care and a house. As for your second part of the debate, entertainment and luxuries would be an incentive to work but not as much of an incentive as knowing you need to work to supply your family, and pay your bills. With the basics being provided, people may feel the need to ease off working and try to find an easier way to entertain. In summary your argument is fair but unrealistic and has flaws to it as I have exploited. How are people in Africa going to be supplied with a new house with heating?

I don't see the amount we care as a finite amount, obviously lack of resources produces a lack of generosity, but we don't have a lack of resources, merely a lack of generosity. This is mainly created by the capitalist idea that 'everything must be profitable', and that anything that isn't, must be made profitable, this model does not accommodate generosity or a level of caring that is adequate. I see the fundamental use of society, as the ability to care for many. Any improvement to society, that allows more people to be cared for, is favourable. The way society operates now is just one possible model and it is apparent that some sort of reform is needed.

The fundamental flaw in the way that society operates to date is this, there is a constant surplus of workers and deficit of jobs, this has some obvious implications, such as a 16% poverty rate in 2013 in the United States. The goal of society should be to abolish poverty and make sure that everyone gets what they need. We spend the first ten years of our life being taught to share with others and be compassionate, then as soon as we begin talking about politics or business, we loose all emotion. We start talking about things like jobs and money as if they are as important as the well being of individuals within our society, when they are merely the tools we have created, that are meant to aid our society and thus the welfare of the individuals within it. It is merely a system, that we treat with as much respect as the people within it.

When presented with the problem 'people are starving to death or 'dying of medical conditions we could fix in an instant' we are faced with the fundamental problem of capitalism in this society, there is no room for generosity. We value the money it costs to buy medicine, more than the individuals receiving it. If individuals cannot pay for the things they require to survive, because there is a deficit of jobs, that we are failing to correct and a welfare system that isn't generous, then they go without. This is the reason why I think that the essentials of life must be supplied for every individual, and they most certainly can, the only thing stopping this, is our own greed and the lack of room for generosity in capitalism.

One big problem people have with 'hand outs' is that they see it as promoting in-equality. If we gave every person below the poverty line, everything they need to live, people who were working for their survival would feel cheated and stop working, so it wouldn't work. By giving everyone the essentials to life, we would be able to produce a society that is not only higher educated, more happy, but also more productive. The incentive for work at the moment is the ability to buy essentials and luxury items. The thing is, people prefer spending money on luxury items than they do the essentials, which is why, if everyone had the essentials already, people would still work. People don't want a dull existence, people will be more happy in working when they know that all of their hard work goes directly to their entertainment. Besides, the system doesn't require the participation of every individual. Just like the one we have now, there will be people who are unemployed. But the thing is, in this model everyone would be looked after and treated equally. Capitalism promotes greed, this system would allow generosity.

I like the idea. Old clothes would work, but heating is way too much.
Taking care of people around the globe is extremely unrealistic idea, this should be applied to people in the country with this law only.